Walt Brown's super-tectonics

And you were, and stil are, wrtong. The mammoths were all significantly putrefied and inedible.From teh reference I posted before:"Out of those only four were found more or less intact, including the Berezovka mammoth. All of them were rotten to some extent and the evidence showed that most were somewhat mutilated by predators prior to freezing."

Apologies in advance ... but there's currently a discussion of Brown's and Hovind's claims about magnetic reversals on talk.origins, with an eye towards adding a refutation to the Index of Creationist claims.Joe, Dr. Stuart Weinstein of the Ewa Beach Institute of Tectonics (who thinks you're still at Indiana, so he can't know much ) says, in Re: Walt Brown and Magnetic Reversal Claims:

quote:

---

This is retarded. I suspect Joe Meert (a paelomagnetist) at U of Indiana has a response to this on his website.

​

The magnetic field resulting from the magentized oceanic crust is quite small compared to the Earth's dipole field, hence it is but a small perturbation to the main field. So no, your compass won't flip even if you were standing right next to it.

​

THe reason the anomlies fluctuate between positive and negative, is that the polarity of the magnetized oceanic crust changes. Where the polarization is the same as the current field it locally reinforces the current dipole field, and results in a positive anomaly and vice versa.

---

And, in Re: Walt Brown and Magnetic Reversal Claims:

quote:

---

Joe has a pretty good discussion of gemagnetism vs. creationist distortions..

​

Is the Earth

​

Although he doesn't directly address the sea-floor anomalies.

​

When these stripped patterns were first discovered, one potential explantion was that you are looking at horst and graben terane, i.e., a version of the "basin and range" but under deep water.

​

So it does not surprise me that a suitably dishonest creationist could
cherry-pick the sci. lit. of the late 50's and very early 60's to support such claims.

---

I understand that, but I'm not a creationist. I suspect it needs some more fleshing out, but not a lot. Do you have anything to add to or expand on that?P.S. appropriate avatar!

Got some useful references handy?

I haven't tried to deny that. It's trivial to tell the difference between bites in unfrozen flesh and bites in frozen flesh.For more information, see Frozen Mammoths and the references contained therein, and Woolly Mammoths: Evidence of Catastrophe?

Read some of the links I posted. You don't know much about the climate in which the mammoths lived, or the contnents of their stomachs when they were found.Added in edit .. And how freakin' fast do you think a creature the size of a mammoth freezes?[This message has been edited by JonF, 02-03-2004]

The scientific process. Peer review. The reality that fame and fortune and babes await the scientist who proves the conventional thinking wrong.Well, maybe not babes, and not often fortune ... but definitely fame.

You have an awfully strange standard, and it's obviously double. Do you think that a very few mistakes are enough to invalidate tens of thousands of correct answers? (And there have been very few mistakes; most of the problems you have heard about are purposeful "errors" specifically designed and/or misrepresented to try to besmirch real science).Do you hold Walt Brown and Kent Hovind to the same standsard? Does one error invlidarte everything they say?